NBSIR 74-449

Fire Endurance Tests on Walls and

Plumbing Chases Containing Either

Metallic or Nonmetallic Drain

Waste and Vent Systems

William J. Parker

Fire Programs

Institute for Applied Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234

November 1973

Interim Report

Prepared for Office of Policy Development and Research

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Washington, D. C. 20410

NBSIR 74-449

FIRE ENDURANCE TESTS ON WALLS AND

PLUMBING CHASES CONTAINING EITHER

METALLIC OR NONMETALLIC DRAIN

WASTE AND VENT SYSTEMS

William J. Parker

Fire Programs

Institute for Applied Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234

November 1973

Interim Report

Principal Sponsor.

Office of Policy Development and Research

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Washington. D. C. 20410

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. Frederick B. Dent. Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS. Richard W. Roberts. Director
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES 1

i

i LIST OF FIGURES ii

I

j ABSTRACT 1

! 1. INTRODUCTION 1

'

i

2. TEST PROCEDURE 3 2.1 Construction 3 2.1.1 Test 1 3 2.1.2 Test 2 5

2.1.3 Test 3 5

2.1.4 Test 4 5

2.1.5 Test 5 5

I 2.2 Instrumentation , 6

2.3 Conduct of Tests 6

3. RESULTS 7 3.1 Visual Observations During Test 7 3.2 Thermocouple Data 7 3.3 Cotton Pad Test 7 3.4 Gas Concentration 8

3.5 Smoke Density 8

3.6 Visual Observations After the Test 8

3.6.1 Test 1 8

3.6.2 Test 2 8

3.6.3 Test 3 9

3.6.4 Test 4 9

3.6.5 Test 5 9

4. DISCUSSION 9

4.1 Fire Performance of DWV in Plumbing Chases 9

4.2 Fire Performance of DVA^ in Wood Stud Walls 11

4.3 Fire Performance of DWV in General 13

5. CONCLUSIONS 14

6. REFERENCES 16

7. APPENDIX I VISUAL OBSERVATIONS DURING THE TESTS 17

8. APPENDIX II SUGGESTED FIRE ENDURNACE TEST PROCEDURE AND 29

ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR DWV PLUMBING CHASES.

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Summary of Construction Details

Table 2 Thermocouple Locations in Tests 1 and 2

Table 3 Thermocouple Locations in Tests 3, 4 and 5

Table 4 Gas Concentrations in Test 1

Table 5 Gas Concentrations in Test 2

Table 6 Variables Examined During the First Five Full Scale Fire Tests

i
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Plan View of Wall and Pipe Chases for Test 1.

Figure 2 Sketch of Chase 1.

Figure 3 Photograph of Installation of DW on Rear Wall of Chase 1.

Figure 4 Sketch of Chase 3.

Figure 5 Photograph of Lower Laterals in Chase 3.

Figure 6 Photograph of Exposed Wall in Test 1.

Figure 7 Plan View of Vlall and Pipe Chases for Test 2.

Figure 8 Photograph of Chase 5 with Side Removed.

Figure 9 Sketch of Chase 7.

Figure 10 Photograph of Lower Lateral in Chase 7.

Figure 11 Photograph of Chases in Test 2.

Figure 12 Wall Construction and Location of Stacks in Test 3.

Figure 13 Cross Section of Wall Showing DWV Installation in Test 3

and Thermocouple Locations used on all Wall Tests.

Figure 14 Photograph of Test 3 Wall Construction.

Figure 15 Wall Construction in Test 5.

Figure 16 Thermocouple Locations in the chases.

Figure 17 Average Furnace Temperatures for Test 1 Compared with

E-119 Curve.

Figure 18 Unexposed Lateral and ASTM Surface Temperatures for

Chase 5.

Figure 19 Unexposed Lateral and ASTM Surface Temperatures in PVC

Installation in Test 3.

Figure 20 Unexposed Lateral and ASTM Surface Temperatures in ABS

Installations in Test 3.

Figure 21 Unexposed Lateral and ASTM Surface Temperatures in Copper

Installation in Test 3.

11
Figure 22 Unexposed Lateral and ASTM Surface Temperatures in

Galvanized Iron Installation in Test 3.

Figure 23 Unexposed Lateral and ASTM Surface Temperatures in PVC

Installation in Test 4.

Figure 24 Unexposed Lateral and ASTM Surface Temperatures in ABS

Installation in Test 4.

Figure 25 Unexposed Lateral and ASTM Surface Temperatures in Copper

Installation in Test 4.

Figure 26 Unexposed Lateral and ASTM Surface Temperatures in

Galvanized Iron Installation in Test 4.

Figure 27 Unexposed Lateral and ASTM Surface Temperatures in PVC

Installation in Test 5.

Figure 28 Unexposed Lateral and ASTM Surface Tem.peratures in ABS

Installation in Test 5.

Figure 29 Unexposed Lateral and ASTM Surfcice Temperatures In Copper

Installation in Test 5.

Figure 30 Unexposed Lateral and ASTM Surface Tem.peratures in Hubless

Cast Iron Installation in Test 5.

Figure 31 Carbon Monoxide and Carbon Dioxide Concentrations in Chase 1,

Figure 32 Carbon Monoxide Concentration in Chase 5.

Figure 33 Carbon Monoxide Concentration in Wall Cavity Containing

PVC in Test 3.

Figure 34 Smoke Buildup in Test 1.

Figure 35 Chase 1 after Test 1.

Figure 36 Chases 2 and 3 after Test 1.

Figure 37 • Unexposed Side of Chases after Test 2.

Figure 38 Chase 5 after Test 2.

Figure 39 Exposed Side of the Wall after Test 3.

Figure 40 Lower PVC Trap on the Unexposed Side of the Wall after

Test 3.

Figure 41 Exposed Gypsum Board Wall at the End of Test; 2,

iii
P.
FIRE ENDURANCE TESTS ON WALLS AND PLUMBING CHASES CONTAINING

EITHER METALLIC OR NONMETALLIC DRAIN WASTE AND VENT SYSTEMS

William J. Parker

Two full scale non-load bearing ASTM E-119 fire endurance

tests were performed on plumbing chase and wall assemblies con- taining polyvinyl chloride (PVC) drain, waste, and vent (DWV)

systems typical of installations serving two or more stories.

For the systems tested which were typical of kitchen sink

drain systems constructed and installed according to typical

plans, the PVC piping did not contribute to the spread of fire

through the plumbing chase to the adjoining dwelling during the

test which lasted 50 minutes. A test failure not associated

with the plastic piping aborted the test but there was no indication that there would have been a failure due to the

piping if the test had continued for one hour.

Three full scale non-load bearing ASTM E-119 fire

endurance tests were also run on walls with enclosed DWV

systems of acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) , PVC,

copper, and iron.

Neither PVC nor ABS piping contributed to fire spread

in a plumbing system consisting of 2-inch stacks and 1-1/2-inch

back- to-back laterals in a 2 x 6 f ir-stud-and-gypsum-board

wall. In one test in which the stacks and laterals were

4 inches in diameter and in another test in which the distance

between wall surfaces was decreased by using 2x4 studs, the

effective fire endurance rating of the wall assembly was re- duced by the installation of the plastic plumbing.

This progress report on the fire endurance evaluation of

five plumbing chase and wall assemblies is limited to con- struction assemblies in which the openings around the laterals

were carefully sealed with plaster spackling. Additional

tests are in progress to examine the effect of leaving the

openings unsealed.

Key words: ABS; cast iron; copper; drain; fire endurance;

fire spread; fire test; Operation BREAKTHROUGH; plastic pipe;

PVC; smoke; toxic gases; vent; waste; plumbing.

1. INTRODUCTION

The use of plastic pipe in the plumbing systems of multi-story

and multiple occupancy buildings raises two im.portant questions in

regard to its behavior in fire. Will the plastic pipe serve to spread

fire to other floors and dwelling units when the fire might otherwise

be contained? Will there be a serious life hazard introduced due to the

smoke and toxic gases generated by the burning of the pipe? The National

Bureau of Standards, under the sponsorship of the Department of Housing

1
and Urban Development, established a research and test program to help

answer these questions.

The contribution of plastic plumbing to the fire spread potential

between floors and dwelling units may be of three types:

1. The fire could spread from the room of origin along the

burning pipe inside the wall or inside the chaseJL/ cavity.

2. The additional heat generated in the chase, or the wall

cavity due solely to the burning of the pipe could cause a premature failure of the wall.

3. Hot gases from the burning room could enter the chase or cavity through the hole left by the burning of the plastic

pipe. The rate of movement through such a hole would

depend largely on the difference between the pressure in

the room and in the cavity. The pressure difference could

be large, especially when considering stack effect in the case of high-rise buildings.

In addition to their fire spread potential, the common plastic

plumbing materials, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), clorinated PVC (CPVC) and

acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS), when they burn, generate a con- siderable amount of smoke (particulates) and toxic gases. Besides carbon

monoxide, PVC and CPVC release hydrogen chloride and ABS releases hydrogen

cyanide. . >

It m.ust be realized that in a burning room, those furnishings made of

organic material may release great quantities of toxic gases and smoke.

The quantities could be many times greater than that which would result

from the complete burning of installed plastic plumbing pipe.. Even when

plastics are not involved in the fire, carbon monoxide from the incomplete

combustion of other materials in the burning room could spread and reach

excessively high levels in adjacent rooms. Building codes and plumbing

codes can place limits on kinds of materials used in construction and

installation, but not on materials that subsequently becom.e the furnishings

and content of the dwelling.

To evaluate the potential severity of the fire problems, five full

scale non-load bearing fire tests involving plastic and metal plumbing

system.s have been performed in this research and test program. The re- sults of these tests, and subsequent tests being planned, should provide

the technical data necessary to develop guidelines for the use of plastic

plumbing systems and to suggest criteria for their acceptances in building

and plumbing codes. From the standpoint of fire safety, the suitability

of the plastic plumbing will depend on the type of application, including

the details of the wall and chase, or shaft construction; the pressure — In recent years, the term "chase" in plumbing usage had connoted a shaft constructed specifically to enclose the plumbing piping in a fire resistant construction.

2
in the chase in the case of highrise buildings, the particular plastic

material, the pipe size, the type of fittings, and the details of installation, particularly the manner in which the pipe penetrates the wall.

The full scale fire tests described in this report were designed to

simulate the construction of a typical kitchen sink or lavatory drain

system made of either plastic or metal. Fires in such locations could

be very intense in the vicinity of the trap due to the common use of

wood cabinets and the common practice of storing household chemicals and

other combustibles under the sink. The configuration chosen represents

the typical condition involving exposure to one side of a straight wall,

although a potentially more severe condition could result if the piping

enclosure extended into a room to give exposure to two or three sides.

The design test duration was taken as 1 hour since this is a normal

requirement for an interdwelling wall to protect the occupants of an adjacent apartment.

2/ Earlier full scale fire tests were performed at NBS on ABS DWV— in

cooperation with the ABS Institute, Inc. in 1970 (Reference 1). The

experimental procedures used in the present tests are similar to those

employed in the earlier ones.

2. TEST PROCEDURE

2.1 Construction

2.1.1 Test 1

A wall assembly 10 feet high by 16 feet long nominally listed to

have a onehour fire endurance rating was built into a test frame of the

NBS wall furnace. The wall was constructed of 2 x 4 fir studs with one layer of 5/8 inch type X gypsum board on each side and with nailing and

joints taped according to the descriptions in the listing (Reference 2).

Four plumbing chases with interior plan dimensions of 20 x 20 inches and

heights of 12 feet were attached to the side of the wall opposite the

furnace. As may be seen in figure 1, the interior of each chase was

lined with 5/8 inch type X gypsum board likewise were the outer walls of

the chases and the portion of the firerated wall alongside the chases.

This type of chase construction complies with the performance recommendations of Operation BREAKTHROUGH (Reference 3) for an interdwelling wall.

All chases were closed at the top and bottom. The side of the wall

opposite the chases formed the closure of the NBS wall furnace and was subjected to the fire exposure.

The arrangement of the chases on the test wall permitted the simultaneous testing of four chases. Only one side of the chase was exposed

since this would be the typical case in a real room fire. Chase 1, shown

in Figure 2, had a 4 inch PVC stack and three ll/2inch PVC laterals— . One lateral near the bottom of the chase passed through the wall into — DWV refers broadly to drain, waste, and vent piping.

2/ — Throught the report the word "lateral" is synonymous with "Fixture

drain" or "trap, arm" passing through the chase wall.

3
furnace. The turiiace pressure at the point of penetration of the lateral

was +0.02 inches of water. This represents a maximum fire generated

pressure which might be expected 20 inches above the floor in a room

involved in fire. The other laterals passed through the opposite wall

of the chase, one at the same elevation and one 8 feet above. The

lateral into the furnace represented a kitchen sink or lavatory drain

in the room of fire origin. The other two laterals represented locations

where the fire could pass from the chase into other dwelling unit rooms either on the same floor or on the floor above. The openings around all

of the laterals in this and succeeding tests were sealed with plaster

speckling and covered with escutcheon plates. An expansion joint in the

4 in. stack was located at the simulated second floor level. The traps were filled with water and held in place by wires to simulate the attachment ment support represented by a sink. The bottom of the stack was attached to a 90 degree elbow which led out through the unexposed chase

wall to the atmosphere. This configuration represented an attachment to

a vented sewer line. The top of the stack extended 1 foot above the top

of the chase and opened into the upper part of the test building. Although the chase was sealed the stack was open at the top and bottom.

This arrangement permitted an appreciable induced air flov; through the

stack when the chase became hot. A photograph of the installation

attached to the rear wall of the chase is shown in Figure 3. The kitchen

sink drain system was chosen because it was deemed to be more critical

both in terms of the likelihood of a fire exposure and the potential fire

severity

In chases 2 and 3 modifications of the installation in Chase 1 were

tested for possible improvement in fire performance. Chase 2 was identical

to Chase 1 except that each of the laterals was enclosed in a sleeve from

the hub of the tee to a point 1/4 inch outside of the chase wall where it was covered with an escutcheon plate. The sleeves were short lengths cut

from 2 inch standard weight galvanized-iron water pipe. The intended

purpose of the sleeve was to restrict the burning and collapse of the

lateral, and thus to protect the wall against fire penetration.

The installation in chase 3 which is shown in figure 4 wa's similar

to that in chase 1 except that the PVC laterals were replaced by laterals

of galvanized iron. The laterals penetrated the chase wall at the same elevation but the connections of the laterals to the stack were m.ade at a point below the neutral pressure plane in the furnace which was the simulated floor level in the chase. This necessitated the incorporation of

a vertical length of a 2-inch galvanized-iron pipe and a change from a reducing double sanitary tee to a reducing double upright wye with a similar change at the upper lateral as may be seen in the photograph in

figure 5. This modification was intended to counter the pressure-induced

flow of hot furnace gases into the stack.

Chase 4 contained no plumbing and had no penetration holes. It

served as a control to determine how much of the temperature rise in the

chase was due to heat transmitted directly through the walls. The ex- posed side of the wall before the test is shown in figure 6.

4
2.1.2 Test 2

The construction of the wall and chase assembly was revised for

the second test. The wall segments enclosing the chases consisted of

only a single layer of 5/8-inch type "X" gypsum board nailed to the outside of the studs as illustrated schematically in figure 7. This single

layer protection is permitted within dwelling units when plumbing is run

in a partition wall instead of inside a chase. In such construction, the

burning of either the plastic plumbing stack or the wood studs could

supplement the other, since there was only one layer of gypsum board

separating the furnace and the stacks. This construction can be seen

in the photograph of chase 5 in figure 8.

The DWV installation in chases 5 and 6 were duplicates of those

in chases 1 and 2. In chase 7 a hubless cast iron stack was used with

PVC laterals , as seen in the sketch and photograph in figures 9 and 10,

to simulate a configuration that has been employed in Operation BREAKTHROUGH. The hubless cast iron stack was used again in chase 8 with

galvanized iron laterals to provide an all metal system for comparison.

The unexposed sides of the chases before the test are shown in figure 11.

2.1.3 Test 3

A comparison of the fire performance of PVC, ABS, copper, and galvanized-iron DWV systems installed inside a typical dwelling separation wall

was made in the third test. The basic DWV configurations of chases 1 and

5 were repeated except that 2-inch stacks were used, which were confined

within a 2 X A fir-stud wall with one layer of 5/8-inch type X gypsum

board on each side. Holes of sufficient size were cut into the board

to accommodate the hubs of the 2- x 1-1/2-inch reducing sanitary tees.

The termination of the stacks at the top and bottom of the wall was the same as it was when installed in the chases. The wall construction was

such that the 5/8-inch plywood subfloor and the top and bottom 2x4

plates, which would be present in an actual building installation, were

properly simulated at the "floor" locations. The wall construction and

location of the stacks are shovm in figure 12. The cross section of the

wall showing the DWV installation can be seen in figure 13. A photograph

of the wall under construction may be seen in figure 14.

2.1.4 Test 4

The construction of the wall and the ABS, PVC, copper and galvanizediron DWV system in Test 4 was identical to that of Test 3 except that

2x6 fir studs were used instead of 2 x 4 fir studs.

2.1.5 Test 5

In Test 5 the DWV systems used the same materials and configurations

as Test 3, but the stacks were 4-inch instead of 2-inch and a hubless castiron stack was used instead of the galvanized iron stack. The galvanized

iron lateral was still used with this stack. The wall construction was

similar to the other two wall tests except that it was made up of a double

5
row of 2 X '^i studs attached to a 2 x 10 plate as shown in the sketch in

figure 15. For ABS and PVC the 1-1/2-inch laterals were connected to a 4-inch double sanitary tee at the lower part of the stack and to a 4-inch

sanitary tee near the top of the stack by means of appropriate reducers.

The hubs of the 4-inch tees protruded slightly through the holes in the

gypsum board at each side of the wall. This protrusion is shown in the

sketch in figure 15. While this type of installation is not typical, it

does occur occasionally in housing construction and represents a very

severe case. The copper and iron DWV system.s used the appropriate reducing

tees and consequently their hubs did not protrude. The penetration holes

were sealed with spackling compound. The plates and the 5/8-inch pljrwood

subfloor at the floor and ceiling elevations were simulated in this test

in the same manner as they were for the previous wall tests. The construction details for these 5 tests are summarized in table 1.

2.2 Instrumentation

The temperatures were monitored with chromel-alumel thermocouples

at various points on the surface of the pipes and tees, in the air

inside the pipe and on the surfaces of the walls and chases. The thermocouple locations for tests 1 and 2 are described in Table 2 and are illustrated for chase 1 in figure 16. The thermocouple locations for

tests 3, 4 and 5 are described in Table 3. ASTM thermocouples, (under

felted asbestos pads) were used on the unexposed surfaces. Smoke

meters which measured light transmission through the smoke over an

18 inch vertical path were installed in the upper part of the chases

in the first test. The light source was a tungsten filament lamp and

the detector was a phototube with a type S-4 surface. Concentrations

of CO and HCl in the chases and in the comparable wall cavities were

determined with commercial colorimetric detector tubes. Additiona'lly

,

CO and CO2 concentrations were recorded continuously using commercial

infrared gas analyzers. Pads of cotton were occasionally placed in

contact with the unexposed surface of the chase wall in order to test

for the possibility of ignition from the passage of hot gases through

cracks or openings in the wall. The cotton pads were USP absorbent

cottonA/. The velocity of the air entering the bottom, of the stacks

was monitored periodically with an anemometer.

2.3 Conduct of the Tests

The test frame containing the wall with the installed DWV or the

combination wall and chase assembly was placed in position in the NBS wall

furnace and the joints between the test frame and the furnace were plastered to provide a seal. Two of the five furnace exhaust vents were closed

off in order to help regulate the pressure inside of the furnace, and the

open area under the test frame was adjusted during the test to keep the

pressure at the lateral into the furnace equal to +0.02 inches of water.

The natural gas flow to the furnace was controlled during the test in

order to follow the prescribed ASTM standard ¥-119 time-temperature curve

4/— Also called cotton wool,

6

J1
(Reference 4) which is shown in figure 17. Temperature and smoke readings

were recorded at one minute intervals on punched paper tape and gas

concentrations were sampled by hand pump approximately every five minutes.

The presence of flames or temperatures hot enough to ignite a cotton pad

on the unexposed surface of the chase was noted. Color photos were

taken at frequent intervals during the test.

Although the tests were planned to run for one hour, they were stopped when the heat or flame penetration of the wall reached a point where

it was unsafe to continue. This occurred in 45 minutes, 50 minutes, and

55 minutes in the first, second and third tests respectively while the

last two tests were run for the full 60 minutes. After completion of

each test, the wall was pulled away from the furnace and photographs were

taken of the exposed wall and DWV systems.

3. RESULTS

The fire tests were run between June 1972 and May 1973.

3.1 Visual Observations During the Tests

The visual observations made during these five tests are recorded

in the appendix.

3.2 Thermocouple Data

Figure 18 compares the temperatures of the unexposed surface of the

chase walls, the temperatures of the laterals measured at the point where

they come through the wall surface on chase 5, and the maximum unexposed

surface temperature permitted by the ASTM E-119 test procedure. The tempei—

atures at similar locations for the other chases in this test were nearly

the same and in no case exceeded 100°C. The highest temperature recorded

on the unexposed wall of chase 1 was 43°C and the highest temperature

recorded on the laterals outside of this wall and 31°C. Figure 19 through

30 make the same comparison for each of the DWV systems examined in

test 3, 4, and 5.

3.3 Cotton Pad Test

There was no ignition of the cotton pad in contact with the unexposed

surface of any of the chases or in contact with the laterals passing through

the unexposed chase walls at any time during the first two tests. In the

third test the cotton pad in contact with the lower ABS lateral ignited

in 42 minutes. There was no ignition of the cotton pad associated with

any of the other DWV systems during the 55 minutes of this test even

though the surface temperature of the copper lateral was up to 500°C.

The cotton in contact with the copper lateral was charred but the pyrolysis

gases were able to escape without igniting. There was no ignition of the

cotton pads for any of the DWV systems in Test 4. In Test 5, flames

came out at the ABS lateral at 27 minutes and at the PVC lateral at

58 minutes. There were no cotton pads placed on the laterals in this

case. There was no ignition of the cotton in contact with the m.etal

laterals in Test 5.

7
3.4 Gas Concentrations

The gas concentrations measured with colorimetric tubes during tests

1 and 2 are tabulated in tables 4 and 5. The concentrations of HCl and

CO quickly went out of range of the detecting tubes in the third test,

which involved the smallest volume cavity (2x4 wood-stud wall). The

CO and CO2 concentrations measured with the infrared analyzers are shown

in figure 31 for chase 1. The CO concentration for chase 5 is shown in

figure 32, and for the PVC installation of test 3 in figure 33, up to the

time the measurements had to be stopped due to the buildup of water in

the inlet piping to the infrared analyzer. HCl is a very reactive gas

that tends to be adsorbed on surfaces very rapidly. This may explain

why some HCl readings are lower than expected.

3.5 Smoke Density

The transmission of light through the upper section of the chases

in Test 1 is compared in figure 34. There was a malfunction in the

recording system for the smoke m.eters in the second test and they were

not used in any of the subsequent tests because the wall cavities were

too small to accomodate the instrumentation. Furthermore it was decided

that it was not possible at the present time to relate the smoke density

in the cavity to the penetration of smoke into the room on the unexposed

side of the wall.

3.6 Visual Observations After the Test

3.6.1 Test 1

Chase 1 is shown after the test in figure 35. The collapse of the

stack took place after the test was over. The charring of the stack was

due to some debris which fell on it. The lateral leading to the furnace

was burned off 5-1/2 inches from the tee at the point of attachment of

the number 2 thermocouple. The burning of the lateral did not extend

beyond the inside layer of gypsum board. The inside of the remaining

lateral was partially closed off due to char formation leaving a 1 inch

diam.eter passage through it. The damage inside chase 1 could be regarded

as slight.

Figure 36 shows chases 2 and 3. In chase 2 the lateral burned a distance of about 2 inches into the sleeve and closed the remainder of

the lateral off by char formation. The scorch on the stack just above

the lower lateral in chase 3 is probably also due to the presence of hot

debris which fell on it after the test. The damage in these two chases

could also be regarded as slight.

3.6.2 Test 2

The unexposed side of the chases can be seen in figure 37. The

P-trap hanging down along the wall was removed from its lateral after

the test. Although the P- traps sagged on the unexposed side of the

chases (due to inadequate wire support), they remained in place and did

8
not pass flame or hot gases sufficient to ignite cotton pads during the

test. The upper laterals pulled out of the stacks in chases 5, 6, and 7 and then sagged on the inside of the chases making it impossible for the

P-traps to fall. The lower laterals on the unexposed side of the stack in

chases 5 and 7 remained intact. In chase 6 the lower laterals remained in

the sleeves attached to the walls. In chases 5 and 7 the laterals on the

exposed side of the stack burned past the wall into the chase, pulled

out of the reducing double sanitary tee and fell to the bottom of the

chase. The stacks in chases 5 and 6 melted down into a mass about

4 feet long, and congealed around the thermocouple wires used to measure

the temperature in the gas stream. The damage in chase 5 can be seen in

figure 38. Although there was a considerable amount of charring of this mass there was no evidence of flaming. The hubless cast iron stacks in

chases 7 and 8 remained in place and the neoprene gaskets in the clamps

appeared to be in good condition after the test.

3.6.3 Test 3

The condition of the DWV installations after Test 3, which was

stopped at 55 minutes, can be seen in figure 39. The copper and galvanized iron stacks were still standing. The ABS stack was completely

consumed and the PVC stack had some fragments left which amounted to

less than 10 percent of the original pipe. Figure 40 shows the lower

PVC trap on the unexposed side of the wall about 15 minutes after the

test was terminated. The paper on the gypsum board wall was charred by

the penetration of high temperatures through the wall, yet the PVC P-trap

remained undamaged

3.6.4 Test 4

The plastic stacks were completely burned out at the end of the

test which was run for 65 minutes. The laterals were intact where they

penetrated the unexposed side of the wall, and were completely sealed off

at this point due to char formation in the interior of the pipe.

3.6.5 Test 5

The ABS pipe in the wall ignited and was extinguished by an internal sprinkler system in the ABS cavity at 33 minutes. The furnace

was shut down after 60 minutes terminating the test of the other three

sections. Both plastic stacks had been consumed as well as the lower

laterals and traps. The upper laterals had been pulled inward but were

still intact. The upper PVC lateral caught fire about 5 minutes after

the test was terminated.

4. DISCUSSION

4.1 Fire Performance of DWV in Plumbing Chases

The first two fire tests were designed to determine whether some typical PVC DWV systems could be a potential source, or factor, in the spread

of fire or smoke through a plumbing chase to other dwelling units on the
same floor, or to the floor above; and if there were a fire spread problem,

how effective certain counter-measures might be. The tests showed that the

systems installed with the openings around the lateral sealed were generally

satisfactory and hence modifications were not recommended. No flames and

only a minor amount of smoke penetrated into the "adjacent dwelling unit"

areas during the test period. The highest temperature recorded on the un- exposed wall of chase 1 was 43°C and the highest temperature recorded on the

laterals at the unexposed side of this chase was 31°C. The highest temperatures at the equivalent locations on chase 5 were 95°C and 64°C respectively. These temperatures were rising very slowly when the test was terminated at 45 minutes in the first test and 50 minutes in the second test. It \ was not possible to ignite the cotton pads at any point on the unexposed

surface of the chases in either of these tests. It is presumed that the

satisfactory performance would have continued to at least 60 minutes from

the beginning of the test in the absence of a premature failure of furnace

frame seal in the first test and a wall failure not associated with the

DWV in the second test.

The gas supply to the furnace had to be shut down in 45 minutes in

the first test due to a breakthrough of flames between the wall and the

test frame. This had nothing to do with the chases or the plumbing and was corrected in the succeeding tests by adding additional protection at

these joints. The test assembly remained in place after the gas was shut

down and the chases were exposed to the burning studs for the remainder

of the hour.

The second test was stopped (gas off) at 50 minutes when the unexposed surface of the wall between chases 1 and 2 indicated a temperature

of 483°C and was rising rapidly. Figure 41 shows the vertical crack in

the third gypsum board panel which permitted a high heat transfer rate to

the back wall. The reason why the crack developed as early as it did is

not known. The test was stopped to examine the condition of the pipe at

this time. Sprinklers which had been installed in the chase were turned

on as soon as the gas supply to the furnace was turned off. The temperature rise of the unexposed surface of the walls between the. other chases were well below 181°C at the time the test. was terminated.

During the first test the concentration of HCl measured in the

chases was an order of magnitude lower than the CO concentration. In

the later tests involving the walls it was found that the CO levels in

the cavities containing the metal DWV was as high as that in the

cavities containing plastic DWV due to the contribution of the burning

wood studs.

There are obviously different physiological and toxic effects of

HCl and CO on people. The threshold limit values (Reference 5) are

5 ppm for HCl and 50 ppm for CO. These are safe limits at which a worker can perform 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. A person can tolerate

considerably higher values than these over the shorter exposure times

encountered in fires. Concentrations of 1,000 ppm of HCl are considered

dangerous if breathed from 30 to 60 minutes and concentrations of

2,000 ppm of CO will produce unconsciousness in about 30 minutes

10
(Reference 6). After one half hour the indicated concentrations of HCl

in the chases included in Test 2 were beyond the range of the measurement system which was 2000 ppm. In an actual installation it is possible

that the HCl would have been essentially confined to the chase and much

of it absorbed in the moist walls.

During the tests most of the smoke present in the observation room

came out of the top of the stacks which were vented into the top of the room and eventually descended to the level of the observers. A lesser

amount came from the leakage between the test wall and the furnace test

frame which would not have been a source in actual construction. There

was a minor contribution of smoke and toxic gases due to leakage around

the lateral penetration holes. Although this source would be present in

practice, it did not appear to be a serious factor from these tests.

A suggested test procedure and set of acceptance criteria with

respect to fire spread which were met by all of the DWV installations

in the first two tests are given in Appendix II.

4.2 Fire Performance of DWV in Wood Stud Walls

In the third test, PVC was compared with ABS and two metal DWV

systems installed within a 2 x 4 wood stud wall. There was a flamethrough

at 42 minutes around the lower ABS lateral. Because of this early

failure the condition of the wall was such that the test had to be

terminated after 55 minutes. Except for the case of the ABS system,

flame did not spread to the unexposed side of the wall, but a 181°C temperature rise of the pipe just outside of the unexposed wall

occurred in 30 minutes for the copper, 37 minutes for the ABS, and

52 minutes for the galvanized iron. The temperature rise in the PVC

pipe at the same location was 120°C at 55 minutes and was rising very

slowly. The mechanisms for these high temperature rises were simply

heat conduction through the metal laterals and heat conduction, in

conjunction with flame spread, in the case of the ABS lateral.

The failure due to a 181°C temperature rise at one of the three

ASTM thermocouples located on each section of the unexposed surface of

the wall occurred at 48 minutes for ABS and 53 minutes for PVC. The

highest temperatures were at the highest elevations on the wall. There

were no failures due to 181°C temperature rises on the sections of the

wall containing the metal piping systems. The sequence of events leading

to the fire penetration failures seemed to be (1) flaming of the wood

studs behind all of the fire-exposed gypsum board joints in the furnace,

(2) burning of the pipe inside the wall cavity, and (3) disintegration and

collapse of the exposed gypsum board. VJhere the gypsum board panels

associated with the plastic DWV fell away from the adjacent wall sections,

the temperature rises recorded were as high as those for the wall sections

containing the plastic pipe. Those panels protecting the metal plumbing

did not break up and the adjacent empty wall sections were not approaching

failure at the end of the test. The entrance of hot furnace gases into

the wall cavity left by the burnout of the pipe did not appear to be a major factor because the temperatures at 30 minutes at mid height were

11
essentially the same for all the cavities. The damage

the wall containing the ABS piping occurred sooner and

than the damage to the part of the wall containing the

to the section of was more severe

PVC piping.

The construction used in the fourth test was the same as that in the

third test except that the 2x4 studs were replaced by 2 x 6 studs thereby providing a larger wall cavity. In thj.s. test the hubs of the sanitary

tees did not protrude through the gypsum board. There were no failures

due to excessive temperature rise or flame through for either of the

plastic or metal DWV systems. The fire exposed gypsum board remained

intact almost to the end of the test.

In the fifth test the 4-inch stacks were enclosed in a double 2x4

wood stud wall with the studs secured to 2 x 10 plates. Four-inch sanitary tees were used and their hubs protruded through the gypsum board

on each side of the wall. This created an especially severe situation

in which flames came out of the lower ABS lateral on the unexposed side

of the wall in 27 minutes. An excessive temperature rise was recorded

in 55 minutes by one ASTM thermocouple on the section of wall . containing

the PVC. At the same time, the paper in one area of the unexposed surface

of the gypsum board burst into flame. At 58 minutes flames came out of

the lower PVC lateral on the same side of the wall.

When the lower part of the plastic stacks started to soften the

upper sections began to descend and pull in the laterals. This caused

the seals around the lateral penetrations to rupture which then allowed

large quantities of smoke to escape. If this smoke were confined in a normal sized room, the conditions would be untenable in a short time.

This demonstrates one aspect of the importance of adequately supporting

the plastic stacks along their length.

The effect of cavity depth, stack diameter, and lateral diameter

is illustrated in Table 6. Although a l-lZ.2 lateral was actually used

in Test 5, the 4 inch hub penetrated the gypsum wall board so that the

lateral was effectively slightly over 4 inches in diameter at the point

of wall penetration. The comparison of the results of Test 3 and 5 with

Test 4 indicates the importance of providing adequate space for the

stack and the fittings to be located totally within the wall. If this

space is provided, it appears that both PVC and ABS can be used safely; if

it is not, both are susceptible to failure. One lesson learned in these

tests is the importance of using reducing double sanitary tees instead

of using double sanitary tees fitted with reducers, at least in those

cases where the space is severely restricted. Although it would appear

that there would be an economical advantage to using the reducing tees, it

is not uncommon for a supplier to fill orders for reducing tees by

substituting regular tees with reducer inserts. (The number of items in

his inventory is reduced by such practice.) If the space provided within

the wall or chase is only adequate to enclose a reducing tee, the use of

a regular tee with inserts could result in a serious reduction in fire

endurance time. This point cannot be over emphasized.

12
Whereas the metal plumbing in these tests was not responsible for

any failures of the wall with regard to flame-through or temperature

rise on the unexposed surface of the wall in excess of 181°C, there were temperature rises on the surface of the copper lateral well over

181°C due to its high thermal conductivity. Should the maximum permitted

rise on the unexposed surface specified by the E-119 criteria include the

surface of the lateral? Until there is some demonstration that these

high lateral temperatures significantly increase the fire hazard, it

would seem reasonable to exclude this temperature from the specification.

If the surface of the lateral is permitted to rise more than 181°C, why

should this restriction still apply to the surface of the wall? For a wall with pipe openings the restriction on the surface temperature rise

could hardly be relaxed without removing the requirements for walls in

general. But there is some justification for providing a larger

margin of safety for the wall surface, in that materials stored against

it could substantially increase its temperature due to heat trapping.

On the other hand, heat conduction along the lateral to the water-filled

trap would reduce this heat-trapping effect on the surface of the pipe.

A fair test which could be applied to the pipe on the unexposed side

of the wall, however, is that of determining whether materials in contact

with the pipe will ignite. One can easily imagine times when there

may be cloth draped over the drain pipe under a sink and other combustibles stored within an enclosed closet or vanity. Although the copper

lateral reached SOCC in Test 3, the cotton pad in contact with the pipe

only browned and charred without igniting. Thus there was no failure of

the wall sections containing the copper DWV according to this criterion.

4.3 Fire Performance of DWV in General

Gas concentrations were measured inside the chase or wall cavities

during these tests. This location was chosen to give a comparison

between the toxic gases peculiar to burning plastic and the CO

generated by the burning of wood and paper in a well defined space. However, the actual concentrations of the gases in these spaces is not the

important consideration but, rather, the levels that would be built up in

adjacent occupied rooms. Furthermore, the high levels in the confined

spaces, along with the high temperature therein, made the measurement

problem so difficult with the colorimetric tubes that the measurements

were terminated early in all but the first test.

To the extent that a comparison could be made, the CO levels were

about an order of magnitude higher than the HCl levels in the cavities

containing the PVC piping. Since there was the same general CO level

present in the other cavities due to the burning of the wood studs, the

burning of the PVC added to the existing potential toxic gas hazard.

However, the additional hazard may be considered minimal due to the

protected location of the pipe and the confinement of the pyrolysis

products during burning.

In order to provide exhaustive guidelines for the use of plastic pipe

in DWV systems in buildings it will be necessary to examine many more

13
conditions than were covered in these initial tests. There are many

variables which need to be considered in connection with the location

of DWV within walls and chases and the nature of the penetrations of

these vertical enclosures. These include the type of piping material,

size of piping, wall material, construction and dimensions, pressure

differences and lateral protection. The effect of unsealed holes around

the lateral is probably very important. Ceiling penetrations and location

of DWV in the space between the floor and ceiling are other important

problems that need to be investigated.

5. CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions may be drawn based on the five fire

tests just completed. These apply to constructions in which the openings

around the laterals where they penetrate the walls are sealed.

1. A PVC DWV system in a plumbing chase, similar to that used

in a residential construction did not spread fire from one

side of the construction to the other for a period of

50 minutes and would not be expected to fail within

60 minutes. (Premature failure of wall was not directly

related to the DWV installations in the chase.)

2. Under the design conditions applicable to these tests the

HCl contributed by the PVC DWV did not reach concentrationlevels as high as those of CO. However, further measurements

of the toxic gas concentrations extended over the duration

of the tests are needed to prove this point.

' 3. The fire endurance of a one hour fire rated 2x4 wdod-studand-gypsum-board wall will be reduced to less than one hour

when PVC or ABS DWV is installed within it'^- using the common plumbing configuration and construction details described for

test 3 of this report. Under the conditions of this test the

section of the wall containing the ABS failed by direct

flame penetration to the unexposed surface, whereas the

assembly containing the PVC failed by excessive temperature

rise (at a later time).

4. Because of their high thermal conductivities, the temperature

rise on the unexposed copper and galvanized iron laterals in

Test 3 exceeded 181°C within one hour when tested in the same

way as the plastic pipes. A 181°C temperature rise at any

point on the unexposed surface of the wall constitutes a failure by the ASTM E-119 acceptance criteria. -There is

however no requirement in ASTM E-119 placed on the surface

temperatures of pipes penetrating through the surface.

5. The fire endurance of a one-hour fire-rated 2x6 wood-stud

and gypsum-board wall was not reduced below one hour with

PVC and ABS DWV installed within it using the common plumbing configuration and construction details described

in this report.

14
6. In order to maintain the fire endurance rating of a wall

with back- to-back plumbing fixtures, it is important that

reducing double sanitary tees be used rather than double

sanitary tees fitted with reducing bushings. This is

particularly true if the hubs of the double sanitary tees

protrude through the gypsum board on each side of the wall.

7. The openings around the laterals where they pass through

the wall must be completely sealed off with an adequate

packing material such as spackling.

8. Support of the stack at each floor level will eliminate

some of the strain on the laterals at the point of wall

penetration when the stack begins to soften under heat.

Excessive strain on the laterals can break the seal at the

wall and permit the passage of large amounts of smoke out

of the wall cavity.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Sponsored in part by the Office of Policy Development and Research,

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C. 20A10.

15
6. REFERENCES

I. A. Benjamin and W. J. Parker, "Fire Spread Potential of ABS

Plastic Plumbing," Fire Technology, Vol. 8, No. 2, May 1972.

Fire Resistance Index, 1974, Underwriters' Laboratories, Inc.,

Design No. U305 p. 388.

Operation BREAKTHROUGH Guide Criteria, Vol. 1,2, 3 and 4. Guide

Criteria for the Evaluation of Operation BREAKTHROUGH Housing

Systems:

Volume I - Multifamily High Rise - PB-212-055

Volume II - Multifamily Low Rise - PB-212-056

, .Volume III - Single Family Attached - PB-212-d57

Volume IV - Single Family Detached - PB-212-058

Available through National Technical Information Service, 5284 Port

Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia, 22151.

1973 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Part 14', American Society for

Testing and Materials 1973, p. 568.

"Threshold Limit Values of Airborne Contaminants Adopted by ACG-IH

for 1972," American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygenists,

P.O. Box 1937, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45201.

W. Braker and A. L. Mossman, "Effects of Exposure to Toxic Gases - First Aid and Medical Treatment," Matheson Gas Products 1970.

16
7. APPENDIX I

Visual Observations During the Tests

Time Observations

Min:Sec

02:00 P- traps* at chases 1, 2 and 3 have fallen away inside

of the furnace. The laterals of all three chases are flaming in the furnace.

03:30 Smoke is issuing copiously from the top of the stack

in chase 1.

04:00 All of the paper burned off the exposed gypsum board

wall.

05:00 Smoke and steam are issuing from the bottom of the

stack in chase 2.

06:00 Considerable water coming out of the bottom of chase 3.

08:00 Flaming stopped at the lateral on the furnace side of

chase 1.

10:00 Flaming still persists in the furnace at the lateral

to chase 2. Smoke and steam is appearing around the

lower lateral where it penetrates the unexposed wall

of chase 2

.

10:30 The chrome plated brass P-trap from chase 3 fell

into the furnace.

13:30 The furnace lateral to chase 2 is no longer flaming.

20:00 Smoke is leaking out along the south edge of the wall.

Smoke is coming out of the bottom of the empty chase.

There is flaming of the studs along all three gypsum

board joints in the furnace. There are popping noises

caused by the burning of the studs in the wall.

25:00 Smoke is issuing from all of the gypsum, board joints

on all of the chases.

27:00 Wall between chases is warm.

30:30 Popping continues. The burning studs are expelling

sparks and cinders into the furnace.

*The P-trap, resembling an inverted siphon, is one of several designs of

devises used in drains to provide a water seal.

17
Flame, is issuing from the upper joint between the

wall and the frame on the unexposed side between

chases 3 and 4 (not associated with fire penetration'

through chase). Smoke is continuing to issue from

the top of the stack in chase 1 but not in the others.

The air velocities into the bottom of the stacks were

400 ft/min in chase 1,

200 ft/min in chase 2,

and 300 ft/min in chase 3.

More water draining from bottom of stack in chase 3.

Gypsum board is separating on the furnace side of

chase 4.

Smoke continues to issue from the top of stack in

chase 1 and from leaks between the wall construction

and the frame.

Flames at joint between wall and test frame on the

unexposed side are now 6 to 8 inches high. The

gypsum board is separating along the whole length

of the upper wall in the furnace.

Flames are now 2 feet high at the joint between the

wall and the frame. Frame is being threatened.

Embers are falling in the observation room. Gas to

the furnace is cut off. Wall is permitted to burn

for another 25 minutes.

The gypsum board is burning on the unexposed surface

between chases 1 and 2. (This is due to premature

failure of seal at joint of furnace frame.) There

is considerable water draining from the bottom of the

stack in chase 1. '

The wall was moved away from the furnace and hit with

a spray of water from the fire hose. The wall collapsed and fell. The stacks were observed to be

fairly straight at the time when the wall was giving

away. (The collapsed state seen after the test was

a result mostly of the fall).

3.1.2 Test 2

Observations

The number 5 P-trap on the exposed side is flaming.

Approximately at this time numbers 5, 6, and 7 Ptraps on the exposed side fell into the furnace

leaving molten flamdng PVC at the exposed openings.

18
Smoke is emanating from the top of the stack of

chase 7

Visible combustion products coming out of the bottom

drain of chase 5. By its yellowish color and its

smell, it appears to be HCl

The gypsum board on the exposed side is completely

charred. Smoke is emanating out of the stack at

the top of chase 5.

Smoke is emanating around the lower P-trap (on the

unexposed side) for chase 7. There is still smoke

out the stack at the top of chase 7.

There is flaming at the P-trap on the exposed side

of chase 8.

Smoke is now emanating around the top of P-trap of

Chase 7 (unexposed side).

Smoke coming out of the tops of stacks 5, 6 and 7.

Most of the smoke is coming from stacks 5 and 7,

and the most smoke of all appears to come from 5.

There is still quite a bit of smoke around both

unexposed P-traps on chase 7. The lateral on the

exposed side of chase 7 is sealed off.

P-rtrap 8 is the only one still standing on the

furnace side. Smoke emanating out around unexposed

laterals on chase 7 and also at the bottom of the

chase

There is still quite a bit of smoke coming from the

tops of 5, 6, and 7 chases. No smoke out the top

of chase 8.

Plastic has for the most part fallen out from the

exposed side but has effectively stopped up the

openings

The number 8 P-trap is still standing (from the

exposed side) . The gypsum board to this point

appears to have held its integrity on the exposed

side, but a red glow is visible at the vertical

joints as viewed from the inside of the furnace.

Smoke is emanating around the top P-trap of chase 6.

Smoke is emanating from the vertical joint between

the wall and chase 5 on the south side.

19
Smoke is coming from behind chase 8 at the wall as viewed from the unexposed side.

Most smoke out the stacks is now coming from the

chase 6 stack.

There is still a red glow at the vertical joints as viewed from the exposed side and also a red glow where

the P-trap connections were (at the opening)

Smoke is coming from the bottom of the 5 chase.

Smoke is now coming from the north joint between

chase 7 and wall.

Still smoke emanating from the top P-traps of chase ; 6, 7 and 8.

Smoke appears to be coming from behind chases 6, 7,

and 8 at the wall behind the chases. Smoke is coming

from the hole 2/3 the way up chase 5.

Much smoke out top P-traps of all 4 chases. Also ^' smoke out bottoms of all chases and all 4 bottom

P-traps.

There are cracks (visible openings) at the joint

facing the room at chase 7.

There is a crackling sound caused by burning studs in

the wall. There are flames at all 3 vertical joints

visible on the exposed side.

Smoke is coming out around all of the laterals (top

and bottom) and at the bottoms of the chases

(especially 6).

There is a crack at the joint between chases and the

wall about 1/2 way up. The top P-trap for chase. 5 is

drooping as viewed from the outside. We neglected to use the wire supports for the traps on this test.

The bottom P-trap for chase 5 is now drooping. The

top P-trap for chase 6 is drooping. There is a brownish ring at all of the upper laterals (unexposed

side) where the smoke is emanating..

Crackling sound from the inside of the wall.

There is still flames at the vertical joints on the

exposed side. There is still smoke out the tops of

all chases and around the lower laterals, but very

20
little from the bottom of the stacks. The chase 6

bpttom P-trap is now sagging.

31:00

32:00

33:00

34:00

Th^re Is a visible opening (hole) where the P-trap

was on the exposed side for chase 7, but there is

still PVC at the exposed side openings for P-traps

of chases 5 and 6. Flame at P-trap opening on exposed

9i4^ of ch^se 8 is still intact. There is no smoke

coming from around the bottom lateral on the unexposed

aide of ch,ase 7,

There is no smoke coming from around the top lateral,

chase 5, unexposed side. There is more loud crackling from the inside of the wall.

The only lateral that does not have a brown ring

around it is the bottom lateral for chase 8.

Still flaming at the vertical joints as viewed from

the inside of the furnace. The holes for chase 5 apd 6 still appear to be stopped up on the exposed

side; there is no PVC remaining at the exposed

lateral hole on chase 7. The P-trap on chase

8 inside the furnace is ok.

35:00

^6:00

37:00

38:00

39fOO

40:00

41:00

The vertical joint of the unexposed wall between

chases 5 and 6 is cracking.

Much crackling from inside the wall or chases

(especially 7). Cotton wool test was run, on chase

7» ju^t browning the cotton.

Th^re is now nothing in the lateral holes on the

exposed side except the lateral and P-trap for

chase 8 which is still intact.

There is still smoke out the bottoms of all chases.

(A lot of crackling noise on the inside of chases

or waj-l)

.

There is burning at the P-trap on chase 8, exposed

side. There is still flaming at the vertical joints.

The chase 7 P-trap is drooping at the top; the bottom

P-trap is drooping slightly. There is a blue flame

at the iron pipe as viewed from the exposed side.

The gypsujn board is opening at the vertical joints

on the exposed side, apparently due to shrinkage.

The top P-trap for chase 7 is apparently about to

fall.

21
43:00

A4:00

Smoke is beginning to fill the room, yt

For chase 8 the wall and P-trap are hot while at the

end of the P-trap the temperature app^ats to be , ambient. .J

45:00

45:30

46:00

47:00

48:00

Top P-traps for chase 5, 7 appear to be "about to fall.

There is smoke out the top of stacks 'fort "chases 5, 6

and 7 but not chase 8. »>^

Smoke is really puffing out the tops of- stacks 6 and 7 while some smoke is coming from 5. There is still

a blue flame at the P-trap at the furijace' side of

chase 8.

Smoke is coming out of the bottom of tbe-"^tack in

chase 6.

At the joint at the wall between chases -it'^nd 6 a cotton pad ignition test was perf ormed^atiidfc just, a little browning occurred although-! there >was a' red

glow visible in the joint. •'^^

00

49:00

50:00

All PVC top P-traps appear about to fall.

Smoke is coming out the drains at the Jio^Cblnsf of

chases 5 and 6. The glow at the crack , in. the wall

(vertical) between chases 5 and 6 is-- 0boikt-'6 incheslong. At this time the test was terminated'. At; the

termination of the test all 3 PVC P-t?aps' 5j 6, and 7 top and bottom were drooping. The top P-traps lippear

to be ready to fall. The bottom P-trapa .^apr-e drooping

somewhat less; 5 a lot, 6 not too much aiTd: 7^ very

little. After the sprinkling pf the' c-hases,' there

was still burning at the tops of the chases when

the wall was pulled out. The vertical* plpfii^ for

5 and 6 have melted and congealed around the' thermocouple wires in the lower third of the £hasgV

3.1.3 Test 3 .i..;^

•

00:

Time

Min: Sec

03:00

Observations

The ABS P-trap fell off in the furance. The exposed . ABS lateral into the chase is sagging. The PVC P-trap

is falling off. The PVC lateral into the chase is

sagging. The escutcheon plates around the ABS and

PVC have pulled slightly away from the wall. The

ABS lateral coming out of the escutcheon plate in

the furnace is sagging. The copper and steel are

still in place.

22
Smoke is coming around the lower PVC lateral on the

unexposed side.

The paper on the gypsum board has ignited in the

furnace. There is burning at the ABS penetration.

The escutcheon plate is falling off.

Flame is coming out of the ABS stack and smoke out

of the PVC stack. Slight smoke coming out of copper

and cast iron stacks.

Scorching around PVC P-trap on unexposed side around

the escutcheon plate. Evidence that ABS piping is

burning inside the chase.

Air flow: 160 feet per minute in galvanized iron stack

100 in the ABS riser, 150 feet per minute in the copper

stack, 150 feet per minute in the PVC stack. Flames

coming out of chrome plated brass P-trap on the

galvanized iron lateral, on the exposed side.

More smoke coming around the escutcheon plate on the

PVC lateral on unexposed side. Slight smoke coming

around the ABS lateral. These are the lower laterals

on the unexposed side.

Smoke continues to poyr out of the top of the ABS

stack, but not out of the PVC stack.

The joint treatment on the gypsum board is still in

place for the most part, but starting to flake off.

This is tape compound joint treatment. The P- traps

attached to the copper and galvanized iron laterals

on exposed side are red hot appearance but still

staying in place, no apparent deflection, The

opening into the exposed side of the wall has closed

off for the PVC whereas the ABS has burned off.

Smoke coming around the lower unexposed lateral

on the ABS and continuing to pour out of the top

of the stack.

Gas analysis was shut down for the ABS wall cavity.

Water was pulled into the sample receiving tubing.

Smoke is starting to come out of the bottom of ABS

stack.

No air flow through the galvanized iron stack. On the

copper stack we have 180 feet per minute, on PVC stack

180 feet per minute.

23
The PVC penetration on the exposed side is still

melted over tending to close off the penetration

whereas the ABS is completely open.

The . escutcheon plate around the galvanized iron lateral

on the exposed side has started to pull away from the

wall. The escutcheon plate on the copper lateral on the

exposed side is still tight to the gypsum board.

Smoke is coming out of the top of, the PVC stack as well as the ABS stack now. Areas around the PVC

and ABS lower laterals are scorching. ' •

Ignition test at lower ABS lateral. No ignition of

the cotton as yet.

Some burning at the joints between the gypsum board

sheets on the exposed side. The PVC molten stem

going into the wall cavity is burning. The P-traps

on the copper and galvanized iron laterals are still

in place although they appear to be red hot, the

escutcheon plates are still in place on the copper,

and slightly away from the wall on the galvanized

iron. There is flaming at all joints on the gypsum

board

Starting to hear wood burning inside chase.

Getting some charring of cotton but not ignition

around the lower ABS lateral.

Paper on gypsum board around Che escutcheon plate on

the lower cppper lateral is charring. No charring

is evident around the galvanized iron lateral. The

lateral at the top of the copper stack is charring

the paper. There is no other charring occurring

at the other laterals.

The gas analysis equipment is shut down for the wall

cavity containing the PVC.

Getting smoke around the upper lateral for the copper.

This is the only smoke coming out around any of the

top laterals.

Continuing to burn at the gypsum board joints, no breakup of any of the board as yet. The P-traps for

the galvanized and copper are still in place. The

escutcheon plate on the copper is still tight against

the gypsum board on the exposed side..

Air flow is 200 feet per minute into the copper stack

24
200 feet per minute into galvanized iron stack. Smoke

is coming out of bottom of both plastic stacks.

39:45 An ignition check is being made with the cotton pad at

the top copper lateral again. This is the only upper

lateral that shows any indication of smoke penetration

and charring around the paper.

41:30 The extention of ABS stack above the wall fell off.

Horizontal cracking of the gypsum board at the south

end of furnace on exposed side.

42:00 The PVC is burning pretty heavily at the lateral

opening inside the furnace. The gypsum board on the

south side is opening up inside the furnace. A piece

fell out around the PVC penetration. The gypsum near

the ABS opening inside the furnace is tending to pull

away from the studs. Flame thru at the lower ABS

lateral on the unexposed side. Trap was still filled

with water.

44:15 The wall board on the exposed side of the ABS stack

has fallen into the furnace. There is heavy burning

inside the wall.

45:00 Heavy smoke around the lower ABS lateral. Again the

only charring at the upper part of the unexposed wall

seems to be around the copper lateral.

52:00 The studs are burning, gypsum board is falling off

considerably on the exposed side. Still no flame

thru at any of the penetrations other than the previously reported lower ABS lateral. All other

unexposed laterals are in good shape. There is

still smoke and heat coming around the top and

bottom escutcheon plates for the copper and at the

lower escutcheon plate for the PVC.

52:30 Flame thru at gypsum board joint on unexposed wall

north of ABS trap.

56:00 Gas off, end of test. Continued flaming on gypsum

board joint, no other flame penetration at any of

the P-traps other than the previously reported ABS.

Charring around both laterals for the copper and

charring around lower PVC lateral. Slight charring

at the top PVC lateral. No charring around the

laterals for the galvanized iron.

After pulling the wall frame out of the furnace the

PVC stack is still in place burning, and the ABS

stack has been completely consumed.

25
3.1.4 Test 4

Time Observations

Min:Sec

01:30 PVC P-trap on the exposed side is scorched.

01:35 ABS P-trap has fallen off on the exposed side.

02:05 The paper on the gypsum board on the exposed side

has ignited.

03:00 The PVC P-trap has fallen away from the wall on the

exposed side.

03:30 The ABS lateral on the exposed side has melted and

closed at the escutcheon plate.

05:15 \ , The PVC lateral on the exposed side has also melted

and closed off the opening into the stack.

07:30 Smoke is coming out of the top of the ABS stack.

Exposed ABS lateral has burned away completely.

14:00 Smoke is continuing to come out the top of the ABS

stack.

16:30 There are flames at the openings to the PVC and ABS

cavities in the furnace; the escutcheon plates are

Still in place at both entrances.

18:00 The pump is shut down to the gas analysis equipment

'. for the ABS.

21:00 ' Steam or light smoke is coming out of the top of the

PVC stack.

23:00 The joint compound on the exposed side is starting

to flake off and some flaming of the paper is occurring

at the j oints

25:00 Flaming is noted at the joints of the gypsum board on

the exposed side.

27:00 There is burning inside the cavity containing the

copper

34:45 The escutcheon plate fell away from the opening left

by the PVC lateral on the exposed side. Flaming is

noted at this penetration. The escutcheon plate at

the ABS opening is still in place.

26
Heavy flaming at the opening to the PVC stack on the

exposed side.

The joints are burning badly on the exposed side. The

joint compound treatment has fallen away.

There is no breakup of the gypsum board on the exposed

side

.

A piece of gypsum board at the top fell down and

knocked the tail piece off the P-trap attached to

the copper lateral on the exposed side. (Note:

gypsum board which fell was from protected wood

molding at top of test frame not from the wall itself.)

Flame broke through at the edge of the test frame on south side.

The gypsum board is starting to break away from the

studs at the joints near the PVC stack.

The most severe scorching on the unexposed side is at

the upper copper lateral.

Test shut down. ,

3.1.5 Test 5

Observations

ABS trap is gone.

PVC trap is gone.

Smoke coming around upper ABS lateral.

Smoke out top of PVC stack.

Smoke out through south joint between wall and test

frame

.

Flames out of top of PVC stack.

Metal traps are gone.

Flames out top of ABS stack.

Joints ok on gypsum board.

Trap being pulled inward by the stack.

27
Flames out ABS hole in the furnace.

Can see flames in cavity through the cracks in the

spackle around ABS lower lateral.

Flame appears to be sucked into hole left by ABS

lateral in the furnace.

Voluminous quantities of smoke coming out upper

lateral. This could easily fail test based on smoke

criterion.

Lower ABS trap being pulled in.

Smoke out of bottom of ABS stack.

Sparks issuing from top of wall where hubless cast

iron stack passes through the top plate.

Flames broke out through lower ABS lateral.

Lower ABS trap and lateral were removed and hole

boarded up.

HCl concentration greater than 2,000 ppm at bottom

of stack. Water was applied to ABS cavity for

30 seconds. This effectively stopped the fire in

the cavity.

Cracking of spackling plaster around lower FVC trap.

Tape has fallen away from gypsum board joints but

joints are still intact.

HCl concentration greater than 2,000 around lower

ABS lateral. Lower PVC trap being pulled inward.

Tremendous smoke out around lower PVC lateral.

Gypsum board between PVC and furnace breaking up.

Gypsum board falling into furnace around PVC.

Gypsum board between PVC and furnace has essentially

all fallen in.

Paper on unexposed wall in front of PVC burst into

flame at 3/4 height. Flame out around PVC lateral.

Test is over. Gas is turned off.

28
8. APPENDIX II SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS TO THE

ASTM E-119 STANDARD FIRE ENDURANCE TEST

PROCEDURE AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR DWV PLUMBING CHASES

Suggested Test Procedure

Construct a simulation of the actual assembly, preserving all of

the essential features such as pipe material, pipe size, piping

configuration, chase dimensions, installation details, etc. Place

two thermocouples under felted asbestos pads on the unexposed

surface at 3 feet above the simulated floor level and 1 foot

below the simulated ceiling level.

Fire-expose the side of the chase for which the fire rating is

required to the prescribed ASTM E119 timetemperature exposure

in a standard wall test furnace. If the exposed wall includes

a lateral penetration, the furnace pressure relative to the

adjacent test area at the level of lateral must be equal to the

product of 0.001 inches of water times the intended height of the

lateral above the floor of the room in inches. (This pressure is

applicable to cases where stack effect is not appreciable)

Suggested Acceptance Criteria

Neither of the two ASTM thermocouples located on the unexposed

surface of the chase wall shall exceed 181°C temperature rise

during the fire rating period. (This is in accordance with

the ASTM standard E119 test criteria.)

There shall be no passage of flame or heat sufficient to ignite

cotton pads at any point on the unexposed surface of the chase

within the fire rated period.

At present, there is no standard or established method for measuring

thesmoke and gas passing out through any lateral, through the area adjacent to the lateral, or through the hole left by the

lateral

29
Table 1.

Summary of Construction Details

Far North

Chase or Wall Cavity Location

North of Center South of Center Far South

20 X 20 in. enclosure formed with 2x4 in. fir studs and

5/8 in. type X gypsum board on both inside and outside of

the chases

Chase 1 4 in. PVC

stack and

1-1/2 in

PVC laterals

Chase 2 Same as Chase 1 but with steel

sleeves on laterals

Chase 3 4 in. PVC stack

and 1-1/2 galvanized iron

laterals

Chase 4 No piping

or penetration

Same construction as for Test 1 gypsum board was not put insid e except that 5/8 in. type X

of the chases

Chase 5 Plumbing

same as

in Chase 1

Chase 6

Plumbing sam.e as in Chase 2

Chase 7 4 in. hubless

cast iron stack

with 1-1/2 in.

PVC laterals

Chase 8

4 in. hubless cast

iron stack

with 1-1/2

in. galvanized iron

laterals

Wall constructed of 2 x 4 in. fir studs 16 in. on center

with 5/8 in. type X gypsum board on each side

PVC

2 in. stack

and 1-1/2

in. laterals

Copper

Same as PVC

ABS

I Same as PVC

Iron

Same as PVC

Identical to Test 3 except that the 2 x 4 in. studs were

replaced by 2 x 6 in. studs.

Similar to Test 3 except that the wall was formed by a double

row of 2 X 4 studs mounted on a 2 x 10 in. plate providing a separation of 9.5 in. between the 5/8 in. type X gypsum board

on each side of the wall

PVC

4 in. stack

and 1-1/2

in. laterals . Hubs

of 4 to

1-1/2 in.

reducers

protruded

through the

wall board

Cop per

4 in. stack and

1-1/2 in.

laterals

ABS

Same as PVC

Iron

4 in. hubless cast

iron stack

with 1-1/2

in. galvanized iron

laterals
Table 2.

Thermocouple Locations in Test 1 and 2

1. On surface of lateral just inside of furnace.

2. On surface of lateral just inside of the exposed wall at the chase.

3. On surface of lower lateral just outside of unexposed wall of chase.

4. On surface of upper lateral just outside of unexposed wall of chase.

5. Centered inside the upper portion of the 90° bend at the bottom of

the stack.

6. Centered inside of the double sanitary tee.

7. Centered inside of the stack midway between the laterals.

8. Centered inside of the upper tee.

9. On the surface at the crotch of the double sanitary tee.

10. On the surface of the stack midway between the laterals.

11. In the air space between the stack and the exposed wall of the chase

midway between the laterals.

12. * ASTM thermocouple on the unexposed surface of the exposed wall of the

chase and one foot below the upper lateral.

13. * ASTM thermocouple on the inside surface of the chase wall away from

the furnace and one foot below the upper lateral.

14. ASTM thermocouple on the outside surface of the chase wall away from

the furnace and one foot above the lower lateral.

15. * ASTM thermocouple on the unexposed surface of the exposed wall of

the chase one foot above the lower lateral.

16. ASTM thermocouple on the outside surface of the chase wall away from

the furnace and one foot above the lower lateral.

17. * Inside of the exposed wall on the surface of the unexposed layer

of gypsum board near the top.

18. Inside of the exposed wall on the surface of the exposed layer of

gypsum board near the top

.

19. Same as 18 but in wall between chases.

20. Same as 17 but in wall between chases.
21. Same as 12 but in wall between chases.

(These thermocouple locations are shown in figure 16.)

*Not used in Test 2.
Table 3

Thermocouple Locations in Tests 3, 4, and 5

1. On surface of lateral just inside of furnace.

2. On surface at the crotch of the double sanitary tee.

3. On surface of lower lateral just outside of the wall on the unexposed

side

4. On surface of upper lateral just outside of the wall.

5. Centered inside of the stack at the simulated lower floor level.

6. Centered inside the double sanitary tee.

7. Centered in the stack midway between the laterals.

8. Centered inside the upper tee.

9. On the outside surface of the stack at the same elevation as thermocouple 7.

10. ASTM thermocouple 1 foot above the lower lateral.

11. ASTM thermocouple 1 foot below simulated ceiling level.

12. ASTM thermocouple 6 inches to the left of thermocouple 11.

13. On the surface of the stud closest to the stack, midway between

the two layers of gypsum board, and at the same elevation as thermocouple 7.

(These locations are shown in figure 13.)
TABLE 4

GAS CONCENTRATIONS IN TEST 1

Time HCl CO

Mln; Sec ^hase (ppm) (ppm)

4:15 1 8

6:50 1 12

8:00 1 2000

9:45 1 2500

10:00 ,- 1 0

11:10 2 100

12:30 1 0

13:00 2 60

14:25 2 >4000

15:40 1 0

18:45 \ . . , 2 0

20:35

33:30 .1 0

36:00 . 2 15

40:20 1 10

44:30 1 10

47:00 r .1 0
TABLE 5

GAS CONCENTRATIONS IN TEST 2

Min:Sec Chase iP£Hl iPHUl

3:43 7 10

4:50 5 90

5:30 6 ' 90

6:15 5 2800

7:15 6 3000

8:05 7 3200

9:00 8 >^000

10:15 5 600

15:15 6 ^ 3000.

16:30 8 0

17:30 6 40

18:20 7 0

19:20 8 0

21:30 5 320

22:50 6 225

29:40 5 >^000

30:40 6 >^000

34:25 5 >500
TABLE 6

VARIABLES EXAMINED DURING THE FIRST FIVE FULL SCALE FIRE TESTS

Test

Number

DW

Material

Cavity

Depth

(Inches)

Stack

Diameter

(Inches)

Lateral

Diameter

(Inches)

Layers of 5/8 in

Gypsum Board

Insulation Failure Mode

Failure

Time

(Minutes)

1 PVC 20.0 4 1 1/2 2 None

2 PVC 20.0 4 1 1/2 1 None

3 PVC 3.5 2 1 1/2 1 Temperature

Rise

53

ABS 3.5 2 1 1/2 1 Flame Through 42

4 PVC 5.5 2 1 1/2 1 None

ABS 5.5 2 1 1/2 1 None

5. PVC 9.5 4 4 1 Temperature

Rise

55

ABS 9.5 4 4 1 Flame Through 27

* Test run for 45 nin.

** Test run for 50 min.
o X h- O 2O

CD li. o < ^ < 1 < < X

UJoXt o 3 _l

|—..02—

UJIo

UJ 1 < < X

UJ

iZ UJ

UJ <

CO

UJ>

Q.

0)p.c

13 (0(U <M H O& o

•H> (fl a) C CO

to cfl

00





1

QQ < m X 2 ^ Q uj ^ a: Q <

h-z>

CD < in

LJ < X

035 o (n 3 _l

CQ LJUJ < l_ < X 9 cn o ^ >

UJ

UJ z i*: q: ^ CJ UJ 3 < H

(n Q. < a

•H

FUT3a

n) iH eg

(d 4-1 12 CO

(U oS o

•H> CD

0)

C

m

CO CO PU O

00

•H
Photograph of Chase 5 with

Side Removed.



a

n NOMIH

oo

oo^ -J CO vJJ;

0. CO

in ^ O 3 X Ok 1 a u S8V

UJ UJ

0- IQ- <t 3 _l

d3ddoo TT

D co

•HU

COOO^C • CO cn CO M

•H <U 4J H Oa c M o

4J

CO CO o u u to 4J

r-i C/3 iH

to M-l S O

UJu]

00

•H

a

n OAd

u

Lb-N
COUPLING TO

HOLD STACK

T/C 4

I 1/2 P-TRAPSr

1"

7 1/2

_4.

T/C II 4 12

5/8"

BOTH

TYPE XSIDES

GYP BD

^

7- 0"

2 STACK

f

20"

5/8 PLYWOOD

NEUTRAL PRESSURE LEVEL

2X4 PLATES

OPEN

1^

STEEL SHELF

T

T/C 8

-5/8 PLYWOOD

T/C 7 & 13

FURNACE

T/C 9

SIDE

AIR

SPACE '0-0'

T/C 6

TC 2

ESCUTCHEON

PLATE

PLASTER

-TEST FRAME

'Fig. 13 Cross Section of Wall Showing

DWV Installation and Thermocouple Locations on Test 3.



0 10 2C 5o 40 feO I'D

- TihE(fi!Nl)TESl

Fig. 17 Average Furnace Temperatures

for Test 1 Compared with E119

Curve.
1000_

900.

O 3 UPPER LATERAL. A 4 LOWER LATERAL + 14 UPPER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE

X 1 6 LOWER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE

800.

700_

o 600_J

o

Luo

LU§ 500J

h-crcc

UJdsr. UJ

h- 400.

300_

200_- 181 °C RISE

100_

TIME( MIN

10 40 IF

Fig. 18 Unexposed Lateral and ASTM

Surface Temperatures for

Chase 5.
1000.,

900_

O 3 LOWER LATERAL A 4 UPPER LATERAL

4. 1 Q LOWER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE

X 11 UPPER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE IN LINE WITH STACK

<j> 1 2 UPPER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE TO LEFT OF STACK

800_

700_

600.

CD

UJo

500_

cc

oc

a- 400_

300_

200

100_

]0 to To

TinE(IIIN)

40

Fig. 19 Unexposed Lateral and ASTM

Surface Temperatures in PVC

Installation in Test 3.
1000_

900_

0 3 LOWER LATERAL ' A 4 UPPER LATERAL + ] 0 LOWER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE

X ] 1 UPPER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE IN LINE WITH STACK

0 ] 2 UPPER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE TO LEFT OF STACK

800_

700_

CD

OC

h-cr

cc

UJQ_

600_

500_

400_

300_

200_

100_-

13 g) G)

10

TinE(niN)

40

Fig. 20 Unexposed Lateral and ASTM

Surface Temperatures in ABS

Installation in Test 3.
Fig. 21 Unexposed Lateral and ASTM

Surface Temperatures in Copper

Installation in Test 3.
1000_

900 _

O 3 LOWER LATERAL A 4 UPPER LATERAL + 1 0 LOWER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE

X 1 1 UPPER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE IN LINE WITH STACK

<J> I 2 UPPER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE TO LEFT OF STACK

800.

700_

600_

CDo

- 500.

UJcc3

400.

300_

TinE( niN

)

Fig. 22 Unexposed Lateral and ASTM

Surface Temperatures in

Galvanized Iron Installation

in Test 3.
lOCQ.

900_

CD+X

3 LOWER LATERAL

4. UPPER LATERAL

1 0 LOWER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE

1 ] UPPER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE IN LINE WITH STACK

1 2 UPPER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE TQ i-EFT OF STACK

800_

700_

600_

o

tu

0 fo ^0 5^ 40 ho

TifiE(niN)

Fig. 23 Unexposed Lateral and ASTM

Surface Temperatures in PVC

Installation in Test 4.
1000_

900_

O 3 LOWER LATERAL A 4 UPPER LATERAL + 1 0 LOWER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE

X 1 1 UPPER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE IN LINE WITH STACK

1 2 UPPER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE TO LEFT OF STACK

800_

700_

600_

CD

UJ2 500.

UJai

I—cc

UJa. 400 J

UJ

300_

200.

181 °C RISE

100 _

10 :o 30 lo ko

TinE(niN}

40

Fig. 24 Unexposed Lateral and ASTM

Surface Temperatures in ABS

Installation in Test 4.
1000.

900.

O 3 LOWER LATERAL A 4 UPPER LATERAL

4- 1 0 LOWER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE

X 1 1 UPPER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE IN LINE WITH STACK

O 1 2 UPPER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE TO LEFT OF STACK

800_

700_

600-

a

UJe 500.

UJQC

Z3

OH

UJ

UJ 400_

300.

200_-

100

181 °C RISE

10 "^0 fo

TIME( niN ) 40

Fig. 25 Unexposed Lateral and ASTM

Surface Temperatures in Copper

Installation in Test 4.
1000.

900_

o

4-X

o

3 LOWER LATERAL

4 UPPER LATERAL

] 0 LOWER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE

1 1 UPPER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE IN LINE WITH STACK

1 2 UPPER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE TO LEFT OF STACK

800_

700-

600.

o

o

UJe 5oo_i

UJ

cc

I—cr

QC. bJ

OsrUJ 400_

300_

200.

100_

181 °C RISE

iO

TIME( niN ) 40 ^0

Fig. 26 Unexposed Lateral and ASTM

Surface Temperatures in

Galvanized Iron Installation

in Test 4.
3 LOWER LATERAL

4 UPPER LATERAL

1 0 LOWER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE

1 1 UPPER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE IN LINE WITH STACK

! 2 UPPER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE TO LEFT OF STACK

0 S So So 60

TIME(niN)

1 uuu__

900.

O

+X

Fig. 27 Unexposed Lateral and ASTM

Surface Temperatures in PVC

Installation in Test 5.
000.

900-^

O 3 LOWER LATERAL

a>. 4 UPPER LATERAL + 1 0 LOWER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE

X 1 1 UPPER ASTM THERMOCOUPl^E IN LINE WITH STACK

<f> 1 2 UPPER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE TO LEFT OF STACK

800_

700.

600_

o

UJS 500.

UJoc

h-cr

LiJ cu 400.

SI

300_

i

200_ 181 °C RISF

100_

:0 3GI TinE( niN

ho

Fig. 28 Unexposed Lateral and ASTM

Surface Temperatures in ABS

Installation in Test 5.
1000

O 3 LOWER LATERAL A 4 UPPER LATERAL + 1 0 LOWER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE

X 1 1 UPPER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE IN LINE WITH STACK

<3> 1 2 UPPER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE TO LEFT OF STACK

800_

700_

Fig. 29 Unexposed Lateral and ASTM

Surface Temperatures in Copper

Installation in Test 5.
1000 1

900_

O 3 LOWER LATERAL A 4 UPPER LATERAL

4- 1 0 LOWER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE

X 1 1 UPPER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE IN LINE WITH STACK

<!» ! 2 UPPER ASTM THERMOCOUPLE TO LEFT OF STACK

800_

700.

600_

500_

400_

300_

TIMEt MIN )

Fig. 30 Unexposed Lateral and ASTM

Surface Temperatures in

Hubless Cast Iron Installation

in Test 5.

o

LjJ

ex. on

UJ
Fig. 31 Carbon Monoxide and Carbon

Dioxide Concentrations in

Chase 1.
Fig. 32 Carbon Monoxide Concentration

in Chase 5 in Test 2.
0 5 10 15 20

TIME (MINUTES)

Fig. 33 Carbon Monoxide Concentration

in Wall Cavity Containing PVC

in Test 3.
TIME (MINUTES)

Fig. 34 Smoke Transmission in Test 1.



Fig. 38 Chas- 5 after Test 2.

Fig. 40 Lower PVC Trap on the

Unexposed Side of the Wall

after Test 3.
4-1 to

>-i cd • O CNI PQ

4J

CO H

u-i O O

CO (U o

P, <u

GO

•H

i

JEPT. OF COMM. jLiographic data

SHEET

1. I'l lM.K A l ldN 0\{ Kl I'OKT NO. NBSIR 74-449

2. Ciov 't Accession

No.

3, Recipient's Acces.sjon No.

4. Ti ri.l- AM) si. K 11 ri.i'- Fire Endurance Tests on Walls and Plumbing Chases Containing

Either Metallic or Nonmetallic Drain Waste and Vent Systems

5. Publication Date

6. Performing Organisation Code

7. AU rHORiS)

William J. Parker

8. Performing Organ. Report No.

9. PKKFORMINC. ORC. AN l/.AT ION NAMK AND ADDRHSS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

10. Projcct/Task/*'ork Unit No. 4908387

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Or,»;anization Namf and Complete Address (Street, City, State, ZIP) ' Office of Policy Development and Research

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Washington, D.C. 20410

13. Type of Report & Period Covered

Interim

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

16. ADSTR.'VCT (A 200-word or less (actual summary ol most significant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.) TwO full SCale nOn-load bearing ASTM E-119 fire

endurance tests were performed on plumbing chase and wall assemblies containing polyvinyl chloride (PVC) drain, waste, and vent (DWV) systems typical of installations I serving two or more stories. For the systems tested which were typical of kitchen sink

drain systems constructed and installed according to typical plans, the PVC piping did

not contribute to the spread of fire through the plumbing chase to the adjoining dwelling during the test which lasted 50 minutes. A test failure not associated with the

plastic piping aborted the test but there was no indication that there would have been

a failure due to the piping if the test had continued for one hour.

Three full scale non-load bearing ASTM E-119 fire endurance tests were also run on walls with enclosed DWV systems of acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) , PVC, copper,

and iron.

Neither PVC nor ABS piping contributed to fire spread in a plumbing system consisting of 2-inch stacks and l~l/2-inch back-to-back laterals in a 2 x 6 f ir-stud-and-gypsui'

board wall. In one test in which the stacks and laterals were 4 inches in diameter and

In another test in which the distance between wall surfaces was decreased by using 2x4 studs, the effective fire endurance rating of the wall assembly was reduced by

the installation of the plastic plumbing.

This progress report on the fire endurance evaluation of five plumbing chase and

wall assemblies is limited to construction assemblies in which the openings around the

3rf^gKfj:g_ygrg_^§ggf"lly^s?§lej_t^it}i plastg-r spacklipg. Additional tests are in progre s 5 n^^cS^,fiffn^,?fi. etfect 6f leaving the o penings^unsealld. —^

I/. K.tY wOKUi (six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only the first letter of the first key word unless a proper name; separated by semicolons

)

ABS; cast iron; copper; drain; fire endurance; fire spread; fire test; Operation

BREAKTHROUGH; plastic pipe; PVC; smoke; toxic gases; vent; waste.

18. AVAILABILITY [7 Unlimited 19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

21. NO. OF PAGES

1

' For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

UNCL ASSIFIED

1

' Order From Sup. of Doc, U.S. Government Printing

Washington, D.C. 20402. SD Cat. No. C13

Office 20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

22. Price

1

' Order From .National Technical Information Service

Springfield, Virginia 22151 (NTIS)

UNCLASSIFIED

USCOMM.DC 29042.P74

STRUCTIONS: Attach original and 2 copies (photocopies) of this form to manuscript

3 send to: The Secretary, appropriate Editorial Review Board. Complete form as in- tated below.

and Sec.

21.07

Cost Center N'o. (Div. use only)

^nature: Division Editorial Commitee Chairman

:;oature of readers for division

Signature of Section Chief

Signature of Division Chief

Date

Date

Date

Total manuscript pages

_1 (including tables)

Is material in automated form?

If so, supply 2 copies of ms. Number of drawings

Number of photos

TLE OF PAPER:

ULTRASONIC INTERFEROMETER MANOMETER

I I A. Physics and Chemistry

I I B. Matherratical Sciences

Other NBS Series:

I I Handbook

I I Special Publ ication (If NBS Proceedin^J

of a Conference, cite in full below.)

I I Applied Mathennatics Series

I I Technical Note

I I Monograph

I [ National Standard Reference Data Scries

I I Building Science Series

I I Federal Information Processing

Standards Series

I I Consumer Info-mation Series

I I Product Standards

I I Letter Circular

I I List of Public itions

|X I NBS Interagency or Internal Report

Recommended For non-NBS Publication:

I I Cite below

AUTHOR(S) (TYPED)

.nclude Title and Teleohone Extension

Author(s) Signature and date AFFILIATION

(If NBS give Division and Section ) iDr. Peter L.M. Heydemann

9?1-?1?1

•: Institute Director

I Paper requires specific review and approval (Chap. 4.2 NBS .^lanual) ^ Paper requires approval for publication in foreign medium

Approved

.

Division Chief

Institute Director (Signature)

(Initials )

Date

Editorial Review Board ^ Paper requires policy review only ^ Paper requires technical and policy review Patent review is: | [ in progress: ] j requested; ] j not required.

From:

Division Chief {Signature) Date

'PROVED BY NBS EDITORIAL REVIEU' BOARD (U'ERB-BER B- JILA) IF APPLICABLE APPROVAL

Signatures of reviewers ror Editorial Review Boarc Date :pons jr Da:

BOARD MEMBERS J. RES EDITOR APPROVAL RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION

Signature of authorized official and dati

Date

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEFET

No.

4. TITLK AND SLBTITLL: S. Publication Date

ULTRASONIC INTERFEROMETER MANOMETER

6. Performing Organization Code

7. AUTHOR(S) 8. Performing Organ. Report No.

i|9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

10. Projecr/Task/Work Unit No.

11. Contract/Grant No.

CCG-71-57

12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Complete Address (Street, City, State, ZIP)

CCG-ARMY/NAVY

13. Type of Report & Period

Covered _ . _ Interim Report

Oct, 1 - Dec. 31, 1973

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.)

A fair amount of experimental work during the past 6 months dealt with the

bottom closure for the manometer columns. This problem has been solved by

using specially prepared titanium disks, which are chemically and acoustically

compatible with the mercury.

An alternate method for the ultrasonic length measurement has been investigated.

It is known as the exact or excess fractions methods and provides a length

measurement that does not have to rely on the integrity of the fringe count.

17. KEY WORDS (six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only the first letter of the first key wo'd unless a proper name; separated by semicolons

)

18. AVAILABILITY Unlimited 19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

21. NO. OF PAGES

tX For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

UNCL ASSIFIED

1

' Order From Sup. of Doc, U.S. Government

Washington, D.C. 20402. SD r^z. No. CM

Printing Office 20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

22. Price

1

^ Otder From National Technical Information

Springfield, Virginia 22151

Service (NTIS)

UNCLASSIFIED

USCOMM-DC 29042-P74

i